Retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness of using two different products in preventing the development of pressure injuries in patients undergoing lung lobectomy.

AIM: This retrospective study aims to determine the impacts of two different products (barrier cream, barrier spray) routinely used before surgery on the development of postoperative pressure injuries in patients undergoing lung lobectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the study, the researchers retrospectively examined the data of 60 patients who underwent lobectomy in a university hospital's thoracic surgery clinic between 12.02.2021 and 14.02.2022. The patients were divided into two groups: those to whom a barrier cream was applied (30) and those to whom a barrier spray was applied. The Patient Description Form and the Braden Risk Assessment Tool were used in data collection. The Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted for statistical analyses. RESULTS: In the study, the development rates of blanchable erythema and stage I pressure injuries in the sacral and dorsal regions were significantly higher in patients to whom a barrier spray was applied than in patients to whom a barrier cream was applied (p < 0.05). Pain intensity in the sacral and dorsal regions was significantly lower in patients to whom a barrier cream was applied than those to whom a barrier spray was applied (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Blanchable erythema and intraoperative pressure injury were observed less in patients in whom a barrier cream was used before surgery. Surgical nurses should first evaluate the risk in the preoperative period in the clinics and benefit from the use of barrier cream to prevent the development of blanchable erythema and intraoperative pressure injury.

The effectiveness of a hydrocolloid crusting method versus standard care in the treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis among adult patients in an acute care setting: A randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a type of irritant contact dermatitis due to prolonged exposure of the skin to moisture induced by urine or/and faeces. The main principles when treating IAD involves protecting the skin from further exposure to irritants, establishing a healing environment, and eradicating skin infections. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the hydrocolloid crusting method (HCM) versus the standard care method (SCM) in treating IAD. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in an acute tertiary hospital in Singapore between August 2019 to September 2021. Using computer-generated numbers, patients were randomised into either HCM or SCM treatment groups. HCM treatment involved cleansing the affected area with a pH-neutral non-rinse moisturising cleanser, and the application of alternate layers of hydrocolloid powder, and non-sting film barrier spray (repeated three times during each use). Patients in the SCM treatment group received the same cleanser followed by a 30% zinc oxide barrier cream. IAD was assessed daily for up to seven days by the wound care nurses using the IAD severity tool. The primary outcome of the study was the mean difference in IAD score per day between both methods. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were eligible and recruited (22 in HCM; 22 in SCM). Patients in both groups were comparable in age and gender. IAD Category 2 was more predominant in both methods. The most common location of IAD was at the perianal skin and diarrhea related to gastroenteritis was the most prevalent cause of IAD. More patients in the SCM group (n = 12; 54.5%) had their IAD healed within seven days compared to HCM, (n = 7; 31.8%) group. However, the average decrease in IAD scores per day for both methods were found to be similar. CONCLUSION: HCM can be considered as a treatment of IAD along with the use of SCM. A skin care regimen should include effective cleansing, skin protection, and moisturization in IAD management.

Anti-pollution skincare: Research on effective ways to protect skin from particulate matter.

While there is increasing interest in anti-pollution care to particulate matter (PM), there has been no research evaluating the efficacy of skin care products in a real-world setting. Our objective was to find effective ways to protect skin from PM. In total, 64 volunteers whose skin was classified as reactive to PM concentration in the previous study were enrolled. Through split-face study, different combinations of skin care products (barrier cream, barrier cream/micellar water, antioxidant, and antioxidant/micellar water) were applied for 4 weeks during the high-PM period. The biophysical properties were measured, and a facial analysis system was used to evaluate skin condition at days 0, 14, and 28. The concentrations of PM and daily events that may affect skin conditions were also recorded. The mean concentration levels of PM10 and PM2.5 from days 0 to 14 were higher in the barrier cream group than in the antioxidant group. For each group, aside from skin tone in the antioxidant/micellar water group, there were no statistically significant differences in skin measurements before and after the application, which reflects no aggravation in skin condition during high-PM periods. Intergroup analysis showed no differences in skin measurements among the four groups from day 0 to day 14, from day 14 to day 28, and from day 0 to 28. For anti-pollution care, maintaining skin barrier function using barrier cream seems to be sufficient in individuals sensitive to PM.

Can reducing cosmetic substances help prevent chromate contact allergy?

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by Cr(VI) is often severe and difficult to treat. Therefore, primary prevention is a main goal but, secondary prevention can be valuable to ease the symptoms or prevent relapse of Cr(VI) dermatitis when sensitization has occurred. Barrier creams have been tried for many chemical substances, but until now there is no successful barrier cream against Cr(VI). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ability of reducing agents to transform Cr(VI) into Cr(III) in an experimental situation, in order to find suitable chemicals to investigate for possible use in a barrier cream. METHODS: The capacity to reduce the amount of Cr(VI) was analyzed in water solutions of acetylcysteine, cysteine, dihydroxyacetone, glutathione, and iron sulfate heptahydrate. Thereafter the reducing capacity of acetylcysteine, dihydroxyacetone, glutathione, and iron sulfate on the amount of Cr(VI) in cement extracts was investigated. The content of Cr(VI) in the test solutions and in the cement extracts was estimated by the diphenyl carbazide spot test. RESULTS: All of the chosen chemicals reduced the amount of Cr(VI) in the test solutions and in the cement extracts to some extent. The reducing capacity was most prominent for iron sulfate. CONCLUSION: A reducing capacity was found for all chosen chemicals.

Skin application of glutathione and iron sulfate can inhibit elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis from hexavalent chromium.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), is often severe and difficult to treat. The most common source of exposure to Cr(VI) in Sweden used to be cement, and more recently leather. The contact allergy can be diminished or inhibited if the exposure is decreased or ceases. Barrier creams against different kinds of allergens have been investigated for their protective properties which may offer protection against Cr(VI) exposure. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the capacity of formulas containing glutathione (GSH) and iron sulfate to inhibit elicitation of ACD in Cr(VI)-allergic individuals when exposed to Cr(VI). METHODS: In 18 Cr(VI)-allergic volunteers the back was divided into eight patch test areas which were treated with preparations of possible barrier creams, prior to patch testing with a dilution series of potassium dichromate and a buffered extract of cement. RESULTS: A significant reduction in reactivity to Cr(VI) and cement extract on skin treated with formulas containing GSH or iron sulfate was noticed, compared with untreated skin. CONCLUSION: Formulas containing GSH or iron sulfate in barrier creams inhibit ACD in individuals allergic to Cr(VI) when applied before exposure to Cr(VI) and cement extract.

In vitro method to evaluate the barrier properties of medical devices for cutaneous use.

Barrier creams (BC) are marketed as cosmetic products or locally-applied medical devices to protect skin against damages induced by chemical agents or physical insults. However, the determination of the BC effectiveness is still a matter of discussion at both the clinical and the regulatory level. In this context, this work aimed at the development of a reliable, reproducible and easy-to-perform experimental protocol for the evaluation of BC performances. Preliminarily, an in vivo method based on the measurement of trans-epidermal water loss had been matter of investigation and was discarded: it required too much time and was not robust and sensitive enough. In vitro, reduction of the permeation of caffeine (used as a model of irritant), through an epidermal membrane mounted on a Franz cell or through a reconstructed 3D human epidermis model, was evaluated. Six BC among oil in water (O/W) or water in oil (W/O) creams were investigated with respect to the petrolatum, which is an efficient impermeable barrier against hydrophilic molecules. Despite minor differences, both methods could rate the effectiveness of the tested products in preventing caffeine exposure. Both methods enable to evaluate and quantify the BC effectiveness in a simple and fast manner. Their application may help regulatory agencies to prevent the marketing of ineffective products for the benefit of consumers.

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by coconut fatty acids diethanolamide.

BACKGROUND: Coconut fatty acids diethanolamide [cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)] is a surface-active derivative of coconut oil that is used in industrial, household and cosmetic products. Cocamide DEA contact allergy has been reported relatively seldom. OBJECTIVES: To describe cocamide DEA-positive patients in an occupational dermatology clinic. METHODS: We retrieved allergic reactions to cocamide DEA from test files, and studied the occupation, exposure, concomitant allergic reactions and diagnoses of the positive patients. RESULTS: Of the 2572 patients tested, 25 (1%) had an allergic reaction to cocamide DEA. Nineteen patients were occupational cases, and 11 worked in the metal industry. Hand cleansers constituted the main source of sensitization (n = 17). Other sources included two dishwashing liquids, one barrier cream, and one metalworking fluid. Three patients reacted to monoethanolamine and 2 to diethanolamine. Diethanolamine is an impurity of cocamide DEA, and can be found in cocamide DEA-containing products and in commercial patch test substances, which may explain some concomitant reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Cocamide DEA allergy is relatively common in patients with occupational hand dermatitis, and mainly derives from hand cleansers. However, exposure to detergents, metalworking fluids and barrier creams must also be taken into account. Concomitant reactions to ethanolamines are possible.

Preventing irritant contact dermatitis with protective creams: influence of the application dose.

BACKGROUND: Skin protection creams (PC)s are used in the occupational setting to help prevent irritant hand dermatitis. The actual amounts of PC applied and the resulting dose per unit area on hands at work are lower than recommended. OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of the applied dose on the efficacy of PCs in the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis. METHODS: Experimental cumulative irritant contact dermatitis was induced by twice daily application of 0.5% NaOH or sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) for 4 days on the backs of 20 healthy volunteers. Test areas were left unprotected or were pretreated with three different PCs applied at a low dose (2 mg/cm(2) ) or a high dose (20 mg/cm(2) ) before irritation. Irritant responses were assessed by visual scoring and measurement of transepidermal water loss, chromametry, and corneometry. RESULTS: Although cumulative irritant dermatitis developed in all unprotected test sites, irritation was significantly reduced in a dose-dependent manner on PC-protected sites. The higher doses of all PCs provided significant protection against irritation. However, the lower dose of one product did not significantly protect against SLS-induced irritation. CONCLUSIONS: The protective efficacy of PCs depends on the amount of product applied per unit skin surface area. Some products may show no protective efficacy when used at doses close to those practically applied at workplaces. Future efficacy studies of PCs should be performed with doses not higher than 2 mg/cm(2) , to avoid overestimation of their protective efficacy.

Diaper dermatitis care of newborns human breast milk or barrier cream.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To establish the effectiveness of human breast milk and barrier cream (40% zinc oxide with cod liver oil formulation) applied for the skincare of newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit on the healing process of diaper dermatitis. BACKGROUND: Diaper dermatitis is the most common dermatological condition in newborns who are cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit. Recently, there are several kinds of complementary skincare methods suggested for newborns, such as sunflower oil, human breast milk, etc. Also, some chemical formulations are still being used in many neonatal intensive care units. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, prospective, experimental. METHODS: This study was carried out with a population including term and preterm newborns who developed diaper rash while being treated in the neonatal intensive care unit of a university hospital in Istanbul between February-October 2010. On completion of the research, a total of 63 newborns from human breast milk (n = 30) and barrier cream (n = 33) groups were contacted. RESULTS: Genders, mean gestation weeks, feeding method, antibiotic use, diaper area cleansing methods, diaper brands and prelesion scores of newborns in both groups were found to be comparable (p > 0·05). There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.294) between the groups in terms of mean number of clinical improvement days, but postlesion score of the barrier cream group was statistically significantly lower (p = 0·002) than the human breast milk group. CONCLUSION: Barrier cream delivers more effective results than treatment with human breast milk, particularly in the treatment of newborns with moderate to severe dermatitis in the result of the study. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study will shed light on nursing care of skin for newborns who are treated in neonatal intensive care unit.

Prevention and management of incontinence-associated dermatitis using a barrier cream.

Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a common skin disorder affecting patients with urinary and/or faecal incontinence. Maintaining the skin's integrity is a challenge, particularly in the elderly and individuals with medical or surgical comorbidities. It is widely reported that the issue is complex and recognition is inconsistent, with symptoms often being confused with those of pressure ulcers. This article explores the causes of IAD, looking at the structure of healthy skin and the pathology that occurs during skin breakdown. It identifies risk factors and prevention and management strategies, including the use of barrier creams. The article then presents the results of a large product evaluation that took place with Cavilon Durable Barrier Cream (3M). The barrier cream was shown to be more effective in treating and managing patients with IAD than the previous product that patients had been using. A case study is also included to demonstrate the efficacy of the newest version of Cavilon Durable Barrier Cream.

Evaluation of clinical and financial outcomes of a new no-sting barrier film and barrier cream in a large UK primary care organisation.

The study involves 95 subjects within a UK Primary Care Organisation and was undertaken in two arms. The objective was to determine the clinical outcomes and clinical acceptability of a newly available range of no-sting barrier film and no-sting barrier cream products offering significant financial benefits. The importance of undertaking this study is underpinned by evidence in the literature relating to the use of no-sting barrier preparations within clinical practice. The first part of the study (arm 1) involved extensive evaluation of either the film or cream barrier in 36 patients and was compared to existing standardised barrier protection care within the organisation. The results indicated that the new product range met all the criteria for formulary inclusion and following this the barrier range was further evaluated in arm 2, 33 patients with barrier cream and 26 patients with barrier film. The entire study was conducted over a 3-month period with patient treatment lasting a minimum of 2 days to a maximum 4-week period adhering to the agreed evaluation protocol as approved by clinical governance. In arm 1 (n = 36), the clinical expectation of the product was met in 32 cases relating to ease of use, conformability, no-sting, quick drying, ease of absorption, compatibility with devices, frequency of application, prevention and management including visual skin improvement resulting in a recommendation for formulary listing in 31 of 36 cases. In arm 2 (n = 59), barrier film and barrier cream performance was consistently rated same as, better than or much better than the existing barrier used. A formulary listing recommendation was made in 51 of 59 cases.

Evaluating the role of protective creams on the cutaneous penetration of Ni nanoparticles.

There is an increase of application of Nickel in the form of nanoparticles (NiNPs) in several fields including modern metallurgy, bioengineering, and medicine. Such growth of the areas of application is actually accompanied with an increase of exposure to Nickel, thus an intensification of the negative effects, the most frequent being the allergic contact dermatitis. Indeed, due to their smaller size, and therefore their higher surface area, NiNPs can release more Ni ions compared to bulk material, that can penetrate and permeate through the skin. To reduce the Ni cutaneous penetration, barrier creams (BC) are applied on the skin surface. There is little information, however, on the efficiency of such commercial protective creams on decreasing Ni cutaneous penetration. For this reason, the objective of the current study was to investigate the protective role of one commercially available formulation for Ni (Nik-L-Block™ containing a chelating agent) and one moisturizing cream (Ceramol 311 basic cream without chelating agent), following exposure to NiNPs, using in vitro Franz cells, as well as the cytotoxicity of NiNPs in primary human dermal fibroblasts was studied. Our results demonstrated that although both tested formulations can decrease Ni accumulation in the skin (4.13 ± 1.74 µg/cm2 for Nik-L-Block™ and 7.14 ± 1.46 µg/cm2 for Ceramol 311 basic cream); there are significant differences between the two creams (p = 0.004). Based on the experimental evidence, we therefore conclude that the composition of such formulations has an imperative role for dermal uptake of Ni. Finally, NiNPs showed no cytotoxic effect on cultured human dermal fibroblasts after 24 and 72 h.

A novel treatment of diaper dermatitis in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Diaper dermatitis (DD) is an acute inflammatory reaction, regardless of the cause, of the diaper-covered area. Topical skin barrier repair cosmetic products are the mainstay treatment to cure and/or prevent DD. AIMS: To assess the efficacy/tolerability of a zinc gluconate-taurine/zinc oxide and panthenol/ glycerin/ Butyrospermum parkii butter barrier cream using clinical evaluation. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label trial, 20 patients (10 infants/10 adults), with mild/moderate DD enrolled at the Dermatology University Clinic of Catania (Italy) were instructed to apply the cream twice daily for 30 days. Degree of erythema was performed clinically by a 5-point severity scale (from 0 = no erythema to 4 = severe erythema), at baseline, at 15 and 30 days. An Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) using a 6-point scale (from -1 = worsening to 4 = complete response/clear) along with product tolerability was also performed at 15 and 30 days. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9. RESULTS: At 15 days, a reduction of clinical erythema assessment (CEA) from baseline was observed (mean from 3.2 ± 0.8 to 2.5 ± 0.3; p < 0.06), that although nonsignificant, showed a significant progressive improvement at 30 days (mean from 3.2 ± 0.8 to 1.1 ± 0.9; p < 0.0001) without any age differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results indicate that the tested barrier cream may represent a promising approach in DD rash. It may be used in mild-to-moderate forms in monotherapy without significant side effects or, where required, in association with pharmacological agents. Its long-term use is likely safe.

A novel dermo-cosmetic product containing thermal spring water, sucralfate, copper sulfate, and zinc sulfate in the management of hand eczema.

BACKGROUND: The regular use of cosmetic products plays a role in the management of hand eczema (HE) and aids in improving barrier function reducing dryness, roughness, pruritus and improving quality of life (QoL). The aim of this open-label study was to assess the efficacy and the reparative effect of a dermo-cosmetic product on subjects suffering from HE after 7 and 21 days of daily application. METHODS: The product was a water-in-oil (W/O) emulsion containing the active ingredients Avène thermal spring water, sucralfate, and copper and zinc sulfates. In total, 32 subjects suffering from either contact dermatitis or climatic dermatitis participated in the trial. The modified total lesion symptom score and physician global assessment scores were used to describe the severity of HE. The safety of the product was assessed through clinical scoring. The subjective tolerance, and acceptance, were documented using a self-assessment questionnaire completed by the subjects. The impact of the dermatosis on QoL was evaluated using the Dermatology Life Quality Index. RESULTS: After 7 days of application, both the physician and subjects noticed a significant improvement in HE. The formula was very well tolerated and accepted. These benefits were correlated with a significant improvement in QoL. CONCLUSION: The W/O emulsion used in this study demonstrated real benefits for the subjects suffering from contact dermatitis and climatic dermatitis.

Efficacy and safety of an over-the-counter 1% colloidal oatmeal cream in the management of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children: a double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an over-the-counter (OTC) 1% colloidal oatmeal cream versus a prescription barrier cream in children with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (6 months-18 years) were randomized to OTC or prescription cream. Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores, Investigator's Global Atopic Dermatitis Assessment (IGADA) scores, patients' and/or caregivers' assessment of itch using 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) on day 0, weeks 1, 2, and 3 were assessed. The intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) populations were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety patients (mean [SD] age, 8.1 [4] years; boys, 45.6%; African American, 54.4%) were randomized (OTC cream, 45; prescription cream, 45). At week 3, EASI scores showed that the OTC cream was non-inferior (non-inferiority margin = 1.5) to the prescription cream (adjusted mean change [95% CI] from baseline: ITT, 0.18 [-0.35, 0.70]; PP, 0.14 [-0.42, 0.70]). IGADA (adjusted mean between group difference, 0.106 [-0.130, 0.341]) and VAS itch (0.103 [-0.831, 1.038]) scores improved in both groups. No safety issues were identified. CONCLUSION: OTC 1% oatmeal cream was equally effective and safe as the prescription barrier cream for the symptomatic treatment of mild-to-moderate AD in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01326910.

Bioengineering measurements of barrier creams efficacy against toluene and NaOH in an in vivo single irritation test.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: By now, only a few models have been published with the goal of testing barrier creams in vivo in humans. The aim of this study was to evaluate with a single irritation test, barriers creams in humans against a lipophilic and a hydrophilic irritant, toluene and NaOH, respectively. METHODS: Both irritants were applied for 15 min after pretreatment of the skin with barrier creams. Non-invasive bioengineering methods, such as skin colorimetry (a*) and cutaneous blood flow (CBF) measurements were used to assess product protection. RESULTS: After toluene application on control sites, the irritation appeared quickly (Tmax =3 min after patch removal), was significant (+5-6 units for a* and+80% for CBF) and did not return to base value within 1 h. Skin irritation after NaOH application, as measured by a*, was less important (+2 units) and occurred later (T"max=40 min after patch removal). For this irritant, CBF response was minor and variable. When testing barrier properties of the products, none of them were able to prevent the skin erythema induced by toluene. Against NaOH, one barrier cream as well as petrolatum and a fatty cream protected the skin significantly. CONCLUSION: The present study points out the unsatisfactory effectiveness of several commercially available barrier creams claimed to protect against lipophilic or hydrophilic irritants.